Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2020001695 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/316,494 12/05/2016 Andrew J. CUTHBERT 140846-054709US 1020
127406 7590 11/03/2020
Chamberlain Hrdlicka
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
1200 Smith St., 14th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
EXAMINER
SEBESTA, CHRISTOPHER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3676
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Patents@chamberlainlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW J. CUTHBERT, JOSEPH E. HESS, and
CARL J. CRAMM
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
Technology Center 3600
Before DANIEL S. SONG, CARL M. DEFRANCO, and
ERIC C. JESCHKE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SONG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for downhole thermal
anomaly detection for ranging to a target wellbore. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
measuring temperature along a relief wellbore, thereby
detecting a temperature anomaly in an earth formation penetrated
by the relief wellbore; and
determining a location of an influx into a target wellbore,
based on the temperature anomaly detecting.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dolman US 2009/0272580 A1 Nov. 5, 2009
Veeningen US 2013/0118809 A1 May 16, 2013
Maida Jr. US 2013/0161098 A1 June 27, 2013
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Veeningen in view of Maida. Final Act. 4.
2. Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Veeningen in view of Maida and Dolman. Final Act. 9.
3. Claims 1, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Maida in view of Veeningen. Ans. 5.2

2 The Examiner added this ground of rejection in the Answer, changing the
order of the applied prior art references. Ans. 5. The Appellant addresses
this rejection in its Reply Brief. See Reply Br. 7.
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
3
OPINION
Rejection 1: Claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–20
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–20 as unpatentable
over Veeningen in view of Maida. Final Act. 4. As to independent claim 1,
the Examiner finds that Veeningen discloses a method involving drilling a
relief wellbore substantially as claimed, including “wherein the location of a
fluid influx in a target wellbore is determined to guide the relief wellbore to
intercept (acoustic signals 144 caused by fluid influx/blowout are measured
to locate the relative position of the relief wellbore to guide it into
intersection[)].” Final Act. 4 (citing Veeningen ¶¶ 2, 28). The Examiner
concedes that Veeningen discloses use of acoustic signals instead of signals
related to temperature anomaly measurements, but finds that Maida
discloses a wellbore drilling system that “utilizes temperature sensors (104)
to measure temperature changes of a surrounding wellbore, wherein changes
in temperature are used to determine the location of fluid influx.” Final Act.
4 (citing Maida ¶¶ 57, 72).
Based on the above findings, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have “modif[ied]
the drilling method of Veeningen to include the use of temperature
evaluation to detect fluid influx as a substitute for or in conjunction with
acoustic ranging.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner explains that “Maida teaches
that acoustic fluid influx detection is also a known method” and “that the use
of temperature evaluation for the detection of fluid influx is a known method
of locating fluid flow, such that it merely represents a known technique in
the art.” Final Act. 4 (citing Maida ¶ 67).
The Appellant argues that “neither reference teaches measuring a
formation temperature from a relief wellbore, much less using that
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
4
temperature measurement to detect a location of fluid influx in a target
wellbore.” Appeal Br. 10. Specifically, the Appellant argues that in contrast
to the Examiner’s finding, “Veeningen only teaches the detection of fluid
already flowing through the target wellbore 140, and does not teach the
detection of the location of a fluid influx into the target wellbore 140.”
Appeal Br. 10, 12; see also Reply Br. 5 (“Veeningen does not teach
measuring any property of the formation at all. . . . Veeningen does not teach
or suggest locating any influx into the target wellbore 140 even based on the
acoustic signals 144, much less temperature . . . .”).
The Examiner further explains the rejection, stating that
the purpose of Veeningen is to drill the relief wellbore to a
location to intercept the target blow out well . . . , wherein in the
context that the flowing fluid producing the acoustic signals is
created by a blowout (fluid influx), the use of an acoustic steering
system to direct the relief wellbore in proximity to the target
wellbore serves to locate, at least in a generic sense, the general
location of the fluid influx.
Ans. 4.
We agree with the Appellant and are not persuaded by the Examiner’s
finding and reasoning. It is not apparent how Veeningen supports the
Examiner’s finding considering Veeningen does not mention or otherwise
discuss fluid influx. Although the Examiner relies on the general disclosure
in Veeningen that relief wellbores are drilled to address potential well
blowout, and appears to equate blowout with fluid influx, the Examiner has
not persuasively shown how Veeningen’s general disclosures pertaining to
the desirability of drilling a relief wellbore to intercept a target wellbore
translates to a teaching of locating a fluid influx in a target wellbore from a
sensor measurement along a relief wellbore. The Examiner’s assertion that
steering a drill to form a relief wellbore that intercepts a target wellbore
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
5
equates “in a generic sense” to locating a fluid influx is unpersuasive, and
insufficient to support the Examiner’s finding that Veeningen discloses
locating fluid influx.
Accordingly, in view of the above, we reverse this rejection of
independent claim 1, and the remaining claims of this rejection, which were
rejected based on the same unsupported findings with respect to Veeningen.
The Appellant’s remaining arguments directed to Maida are moot.

Rejection 2: Claims 4 and 17
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected as unpatentable over Veeningen in view
of Maida and Dolman. Final Act. 9. The Appellant relies on the same
arguments set forth relative to Rejection 1, and further argues that Dolman
fails to overcome the deficiencies of the combination of Veeningen and
Maida. Appeal Br. 15. Indeed, the Examiner’s reliance on Dolman for its
disclosure of determining composition of a fluid influx based on temperature
data does not remedy the deficiency of the combination of Veeningen and
Maida. Accordingly, we also reverse this rejection.

Rejection 3: Claims 1, 9, and 14
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 9, and 14 as unpatentable over Maida
in view of Veeningen. Ans. 5. As to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Maida
discloses a method involving measuring temperature along a wellbore to
detect temperature anomaly in an earth formation, and determining a
location of a fluid influx into a wellbore based thereon. Ans. 6 (citing Maida
¶¶ 55, 57, 67, 68, 70). The Examiner also finds that Maida discloses the use
of a downhole sensor system in conjunction with nearby wellbores, but
“does not expressly teach the drilling of a relief bore and a target bore,
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
6
wherein the temperature determination is in the relief well.” Ans. 6 (citing
Maida ¶ 70). The Examiner further finds that Veeningen discloses a
standard drilling operation “wherein a relief well (116) is drilled toward a
target wellbore (140), wherein signals from the target wellbore (144) are
detected to indicate the relative location of the target wellbore, and indicate
the flow of fluid.” Ans. 6 (citing Veeningen ¶¶ 2, 28).
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to modify the method of Maida to
include the main wellbore being drilled as a relief well being
directed toward a target well as taught by Veeningen, wherein
the detected change in temperature would be from the fluid influx
in the target wellbore (as Maida teaches the detection of a
substantial change in temperature is indicative of fluid flowing
out of or into the formation being drilling through). Doing so
merely constitutes the drilling operation of Maida taking the
form of a common drilling operation in the field, wherein in both
Maida and Veeningen, the primary focus is the collection of data
which indicates the movement of fluid through a wellbore caused
by a fluid influx in a wellbore.
Ans. 6.
The Appellant disagrees and argues that “[n]either reference teaches
measuring a formation temperature from a relief wellbore, much less using
that temperature measurement to detect a location of fluid influx in a target
wellbore.” Reply Br. 7. In particular, the Appellant argues that “Maida
doesn’t teach measuring the temperature of or detecting any temperature
anomaly in an earth formation at all,” and “[t]he only temperature detection
Maida teaches is within the same well in which the sensors are located.”
Reply Br. 7–8. The Appellant further points out that, although Maida
discloses using acoustic detection for gathering information about an
additional, different wellbore from that in which the sensors are provided,
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
7
the Examiner’s rejection “provides no discussion for how a teaching of
acoustic detection between wellbores somehow amounts to a teaching by
either reference that temperature detection can be used between wellbores.”
Reply Br. 8.
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments. Although we
understand the Examiner’s rejection as finding equivalency between
acoustic detection and temperature anomaly detection, we generally agree
with the Appellant that Veeningen’s teaching with respect to using acoustic
signals “is not so broad as to include any signals.” Reply Br. 8. As the
Appellant argues, there lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support the
finding that Maida’s teachings with respect to sensing acoustic signals from
an additional wellbore extends to “detection of temperature as proposed
instead of detecting noise.” Reply Br. 8. Indeed, we agree with the
Appellant that “[t]he proper interpretation of the references is that with
respect to detecting signals from an additional wellbore, Maida and
Veeningen teach the same concept” in that they use acoustic sensors. Reply
Br. 8. Although the Examiner is correct that Maida teaches locating fluid
influx using temperature measurements, that teaching is with respect to the
particular wellbore for which the temperature measurements are taken.
Therefore, in view of the above considerations, we reverse this
rejection as well.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.
Appeal 2020-001695
Application 15/316,494
8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–16,
18–20
103 Veeningen, Maida 1–3, 5–16,
18–20
4, 17 103 Veeningen, Maida,
Dolman
4, 17
1, 9, 14 103 Maida, Veeningen 1, 9, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED